Forums

14 identical lineups -- best and worse Topic

From a league I ran using 14 teams with the same players/lineups. The 14 teams had a 70M salary (there were 2 more teams in the league, with a 90M salary). Every team in the league used the neutral WhatIfSports Park. I drafted plenty of PA/IP so no player ever appeared in a game below 100%, and every position player started every game of the season.

For batters I'll use OPS to determine best and worse seasons (numbers in brackets after the name are the normalized real life stats):

Here are the best and worst seasons of the 5 starting pitchers (who averaged about 210 or so innings apiece). I'll use ERA to determine best and worst seasons -- the additional two stats are OAV and WHIP. (Numbers in brackets after name are ERC#, OAV# and WHIP#.)

Used to do this (alot) w/ the free exhibiton leagues, -&
there upon came the notion that my random selection
of salary caps for each full league, was skewing those
results that were emerging...

Obviously, the chasm between best-&-worst is a good
study here, however --->>> let me explain...

The redundant capping in brain-washed increments of
5's, & 10's, is instead an unfruitful fork-in-the-road, as
we all seek to discover those in the database who've
MOST consistently & reliably performed... Arbitrarily,
the tendency to stop a cap at $40 mil, or $115 mil, -is
is (at best) just another stage, -or rung-on-the-ladder,
wherein a fine tuning adjustment needs to be tested...

An example would be to tweak any given cap, & run
a series of test leagues at a cap of $77 mil, $73 mil,
or even dance around that $70 mil cap above, with a
good dozen leagues at $68 mil, or $71.5 mil... Those
studies narrow the normalizations for standard caps
which grace the classifieds...

Thanks for sharing your numbers at $70 mil... -&, can
truly appreciate the approach that produced the above
roster... Differences are staunch & stout comparing all
of the 'PFielder/DUggla' (presumed) middle of the line-
up 'numbers'...

This isn't really a 50/50 coin flip here... Pitching doesn't
show above as a strength concern, rather, it seems like
the 100% fatigue goal was the accomplishment ... Just
because you make fatigue a non-concern by managing
pitchers well, it may hamper the search for hitting, which
can offset lower cap leagues, when everyone else must
often start a pitcher at less than 100%...

Most certainly in my opinion, there should have been a
slightly modified option, to compare the gap between a
best & a worst... This would be a more proficient study
(at this point), to partner PFielder w/ someone else at a
slightly lower/higher cap (either way), --& try partnering
DUggla with another in the 3rd-4th-5th-&-6th slots...

To me, once you escalate 'OFF' of that standard cap in
the free leagues, the hitting starts to have an edge here.

It looks like the WORST for pitchers isn't as bad as the WORST for hitters - but only because I don't really look at ERA when I see pitchers stats. It's definitely interesting though - I know I would hate to get those "worst" versions of a player on my teams

With their actual stats there it's not so apparent. What I saw was more the difference between BEST and WORSE. Offensive bests seemed to be far superior than offensive worsts - while pitching bests, while still significantly better, don't seem as far from the worsts.

Posted by chargingryno on 11/22/2012 8:42:00 PM (view original):With their actual stats there it's not so apparent. What I saw was more the difference between BEST and WORSE. Offensive bests seemed to be far superior than offensive worsts - while pitching bests, while still significantly better, don't seem as far from the worsts.

Starting pitchers most always will have more PA against than any hitter has PA, they therefore are far more likely to regress to the mean.